Mapping Out A Case of Auditors’ Duties to Shareholders
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/jgd2009.5.1Keywords:
auditors, shareholders, dutiesAbstract
The term ‘auditor’ in Latin, means ‘to listen’. Nonetheless, when scrutinising the duties of auditors, it reveals that they do not merely listen. They also report to the company, on its accounts. Moreover, the scope of these duties has amplified over recent years. This is due to the changes in the corporate landscape. On the other hand, significant judgments have been laid down by courts across jurisdictions whereby in Re Kingston Cotton Mill Co (No 2) [1896] 2 Ch 673 Lopes LJ stated that “...auditors are watchdogs but not bloodhound…†and the statement of Cardozo CJ in Ultramares Corporation v Touche (1931) 174 NE 441 that to hold auditors liable results to a case of “…liability of an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class…†In the midst of these, it is pertinent to determine the legal position in Malaysia. Essentially, the current legal framework governing auditors must be reassessed in the wake of the scandals involving auditors both in the domestic and international forefront. The study then examines the legal position in United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. The study finally explores the appropriate litmus test in determining the duties of auditors to shareholders.
References
Abbott, K. (1982). Company Law. Hampshire: DP Publications, 226.
Ali, R. (1999, September). The Rules of Good Corporate Governance: Methods of Efficient Implementation. Paper presented at the 12th Commonwealth Law Conference, Kuala Lumpur.
Anandarajah, K. (2001). Corporate Governance: A Practical Approach. Singapore: Butterworths Asia, 189.
Andrews, N. (2002, 25-26 June). Change and Continuity in Law and Commerce: The Case of Corporate Governance and the Internationalisation of the Australian, Singapore and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges. Paper presented at the International Conference on Law and Commerce 2002, Law and Commerce in the New Millennium: Adapting to Changing Legal and Business Environment, International Islamic University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Baxt, R. (1990). The Liability of Auditors – The Pendulum Swings Back, Companies & Securities Law Journal, 8, 249.
Bidin, A. (2001). Undang-Undang Syarikat Di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: DBP, 227.
Cadbury, A. (1995). In F. D. Padfield (Ed.), Perspectives on Company Law, London: Graham & Trotman.
Chan, C., Cheah, C., & Heng, P. (2003). Handbook of Malaysian Company Law. Petaling Jaya: Asian Centre for Professional Development, 96.
Davies, P., & Prentice, D. (2003). Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 584.
Gullick, M. (1987). Ranking and Spicer’s Company Law. London: Butterworths, 255.
Kinross, P. (1991). Post Caparo – Paradise Lost? Commercial Law Quarterly, June, 26-28
Oliver, C., & Marshall, E. (1994). Company Law. London: M & E, 284.
Pennington, R. (2001). Company Law. London: Butterworths, 887.
Pitfield, R., & Hughes, P. (1979). The Law and Procedure of Meetings. London: Secretaries Journal, 99, 103.
Rachagan, S., Pascoe, J., & Joshi, A. (2002). Principles of Company Law in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law Journal, 488.
Rohatgi, K. (1981) Company Law: Duties and Responsibilities of Auditors, Companies Act 1965, Current Law Journal, 1, 73
Schmitthoff, C. (1992). Palmer’s Company Law. London: Stevens & Sons, 1088.
Sin, A. (1990) The Duty of Care of Auditors: To Whom Should the Duty be Owed” Malayan Law Journal 3, iii
Singh, A. (1976). Company Law of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Quins Pte Ltd, 53.
Tabalujan, B. (1992) Caparo Revisited: Proximity, Purpose and Knowledge and the Auditor’s Duty of Care to Third Parties, Malayan Law Journal, 2, xc. REKAYASA – Journal of ethics, legal and governance Vol.5, 2009 (1-10) List of Decided Cases AWA Ltd v Daniels t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells (No 2)(1992) 9 ACSR 383; 10 ACLC 1643 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman Ors [1990] 2 AC 605 Electra Private Equity Partners v KPMG Peat Marwick [2001] 1 B.C.L.C. 589
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 23 ACSR 71
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 Henderson v Merret Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 A.C. 145 Ikumene Singapore (Pte) Ltd v Leong Chee Leng [1993] 3 SLR 24 London Oil Storage Co v Seear Hasluck & Co [1904] 31 The Accountant LR 1 Mead v Ball Baker & Co
Mooney & Ors v Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co & Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 87
Pendleburys Ltd v Ellis Green & Co (1936) 80 Acct. L. R. 39
Re Allen Craig & Co (1934) Ch 483
Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co Ltd (1925) Ch 407 Re Kingston Cotton Mill Co (No 2)[1896] 2 Ch 673 Re London & General Bank (No 1) [1895] 2 Ch 166, 170
Salomon v A Salomon Co Ltd (1897) AC 22
Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramata City Council (1981) 150 CLR 225
Spackman v Evans (1868) LR 3 HL 171 Teoh Peng Phe v Wan & Co [2001] 5 MLJ 149
Ultramares Corporation v Touche (1931) 174 NE 441
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
Research impact
Harvested 2026-09-08Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.
